COMMON ORDER :- These civil revision petitions are coming up ‘for admission’.

2. Heard Sri G. Anandam, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions and Sri Anand Kumar Kapur, who had lodged caveat on behalf of respondents in both these civil revision petitions.

3. In view of the commonality of the facts, both these civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

4. CRP No.5205 of 2007 is filed as against an order made in IA NoJ08 of 2007 in OS No. 30 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahbubnagar District. Likewise, CRP No.5206 of 2007 is filed as against as order made in IA No.309 of 2007 in OS No.29 of2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahbubnagar District.

5. In both these matters, the revision petitioner is the defendant in both the suits, who filed applications under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to for short as 'The Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for amendment of written statement in the respective suits.

6. The plaintiff in OS No.30 of 2001 is Mr. M. Rajagopala Chary and the plaintiff in OS No.29 of 2001 is Mr. MR. Srinivas son of Mr. M Rajagopala Chary, the plaintiff in OS No.30 of 2001.

7. In these respective applications filed by the petitioner-defendant in the respective suits, it was averred that the written statement had been filed, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and thereafter the revision petitioner examined himself as DW.1. At the time of filing of written statement, neither the petitioner nor his Counsel had perused the suit promissory notes in these suits marked as Ex.A.1. The specific stand taken is that there is material alteration and certain further averments had also been made.

8. These applications were resisted by filing counters in detail stating that in the written statement an admission relating to the execution of the suit promissory notes had been made and the plea of material alterations had not been taken. PW.I, the plaintiff and PW.2 the attestor of Ex.A1 had been examined. DW.1 in fact admitted the scribe of promissory note in question and if the proposed amendment in the written statement to be allowed it would amount to permitting inconsistent pleas. Certain other facts also had been narrated in the counters.

9. Sri G. Anandam, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the dismissal of these applications made by the learned Judge was on the ground of delay and by virtue of the dismissal of these applications, the revision petitioner is seriously prejudiced, since his valuable right to put forth the plea of material alteration is being taken away. The learned Counsel would also maintain that the verification of the documents in question only this was detected. Hence in any view of the matter and also in the light of the views expressed by the Apex Court, these civil revision petitions are to be allowed, may be in the facts and circumstances of the case by imposing costs if this Court feels just and convenient in these revisions. The Counsel also relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

10. Per contra, Sri Anand Kumar Kapur, who had lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent in the respective civil revision petitions, while making submissions had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the orders, which are being challenged in these revisions and would maintain that in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Judge absolutely there is no legal infirmity. The learned Counsel would also further contend that there is a case where after almost the evidence is coming to a close, the party wants to put in a pleading in accordance with the evidence and the same is impermissible in law. The Counsel would also submit that whether it is to be taken either as 'omission' or 'admission' when a valuable right had accrued to the opposite party, the petitioner can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document